There`s No Place In American Politics For Ideology

Commentary

March 2, 1986|By James G. Driscoll, Staff writer

LITTLE BY LITTLE, the word ``ideology`` has been pushed out of American politics.

It has become a tactical mistake, a political sin of the most serious kind, for a politician to acknowledge that he`s an ideologue. To do so would be to support firmly an ideology, which is defined in an impressive dictionary as ``the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program.``

In shorter words, an ideologue believes in an overall way to deal with the nation`s problems. That way would vary, depending on the ideology embraced (if that embrace actually occurred), but there would be a discernible outlook on the nation and the world.

For instance, a politician could be a liberal. Unfortunately, that`s a weak example. Both remaining liberals fled the nation after Ronald Reagan`s avalanche victory in 1984. They live in Sweden, on welfare.

A slightly better example: A politician could be a conservative. Sure, but that also is highly unlikely these days. A politician will say eagerly that he is a fiscal conservative but a social moderate. He cares about people, he will insist, and you`d better believe he`s serious.

Or a politician could be a neoconservative. He reads the Wall Street Journal`s editorial and opposite editorial pages and has convinced himself that Irving Kristol knows something. If pressed, however, the politician will concede that he`s not sure the neoconservatives actually constitute an ideology as much as they resemble a band of caustic and aging debaters.

Or a politician could be a reformed liberal. He thinks that liberals overall had the right idea but they weren`t tough enough on lazy people who cheated the welfare state. So reformed liberals, like the young Kennedys who now seek office, go around telling voters that they played defensive tackle in college football and they`re not wimps.

None of those examples actually matches the reality of today`s politicians. Most American politicians swear allegiance to a different political credo:

All issues are judged individually, on their own merits.

The credo is so packed with attractiveness that it`s breathtaking. It gives the politician maximum flexibility and minimum commitment. It`s like a marriage with a written contract renewable every 30 days.

Can`t you picture the serious process of decision-making? The politician sits alone, a leather-bound copy of the Constitution at his side, as he carefully reads every phrase of the important bill before him.

Through the endless night he ponders, listening to his conscience and wondering how he can best serve the nation that nurtured him. As the sky lightens at dawn, he pats his loyal dog on the head and reaches the decision on how to vote.

You say it doesn`t happen that way? You say that the politician is guided by the special interest groups that contribute to his campaigns? You say that the politician no more makes voting decisions on his own than he will refuse a constitutent with money to contribute?

Well, cynicism abounds. It`s unbecoming, and we should exorcise it.

Skepticism, however, is a healthier characteristic and we should encourage it. On this subject, skepticism tells us that the banishment of political ideology hasn`t necessarily been salubrious for the nation`s political health.

Is it better for the nation to have politicians controlled by campaign contributors than by their own ideology as it meshes with the goals of their political party? Probably not.

So when a politician professes to judge each issue individually and on its own merits, the informed constituent is wary. The politician may not be a prisoner of ideology but could well be bought and paid for anyway.

And when he says he can`t be reached and is out of pocket, he could well be found in someone`s pocket.